Do Genetic Engineers Believe In Intelligent Design (Creationism) Or Evolution Or BOTH?

Originally posted by tamusan
I was also open to debating creationism, within the confines of genetic engineering. I don't believe creationism is a fact, but I believe it is acceptable to toss it in with all the other theories.

>implying creationism is a theory

It's not testable. It doesn't make predictions. It's not based on empirical observations. It can't be falsified. It's not a theory. It's just a silly idea.

reply to post by rhinoceros

It's just a silly idea.

The only silly idea was thinking that I could find actual open minded debate here. I don't believe in much of anything, but I like to explore arguments from differing points of view. Anything can be an acceptable theory, until it is proven wrong by actual facts.

I realized so few people care about truth these days, when I tried to offer evidence that Fukushima radiation is not killing Japan and the rest of the world.

I barely believe in anything, especially if it comes from a religion. I do think it's healthy to try out differing points of view, from time to time, even it goes against my true point of view.

Originally posted by tamusan
I realized so few people care about truth these days, when I tried to offer evidence that Fukushima radiation is not killing Japan and the rest of the world.

It's killing butterflies.

Originally posted by tamusan
Anything can be an acceptable theory, until it is proven wrong by actual facts.

If it can't be tested and e.g. be "proven wrong", which is the case with creationism, it's NOT a theory.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by tamusan
Anything can be an acceptable theory, until it is proven wrong by actual facts.

If it can't be tested and e.g. be "proven wrong", which is the case with creationism, it's NOT a theory.

That is not true. A theory is merely a supposition.

reply to post by Thain Esh Kelch


Thank you for prompting me to verify your claim. I haven't been paying attention for a few months. I'll finally concede that radiation is greatly impacting organisms. I never actually doubted that negative effects were going to start showing. I was just tired of seeing everything being blamed on the reactors.

reply to post by rhinoceros


Only if you are talking about theistic creation. I'm not implying that God did anything or is even there.

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by tamusan
Anything can be an acceptable theory, until it is proven wrong by actual facts.

If it can't be tested and e.g. be "proven wrong", which is the case with creationism, it's NOT a theory.

That is not true. A theory is merely a supposition.

No.

Essential criteria

The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.

A body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory if it has fulfilled these criteria:

It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.
It is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results. (Its predictions may differ slightly from pre-existing theories in cases where they are more accurate than before.)
It can be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.
It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations. (See Occam's razor. Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)

The first three criteria are the most important. Theories considered scientific meet at least most of the criteria, but ideally all of them. This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution, etc.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
No.

Yes. A scientific theory, which you are quoting, is not the same as the general term theory.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by tamusan
Anything can be an acceptable theory, until it is proven wrong by actual facts.

If it can't be tested and e.g. be "proven wrong", which is the case with creationism, it's NOT a theory.

How could evolution be proven wrong?

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by tamusan
Anything can be an acceptable theory, until it is proven wrong by actual facts.

If it can't be tested and e.g. be "proven wrong", which is the case with creationism, it's NOT a theory.

Can humans perform creationism?